fred8033

Never really cared for leadership corps, senior patrol, honor patrol or what ever you want to call it. Sure it works for some troops. Never cared for it myself.

Never cared for adults shadowing youth positions ... except maybe the quartermaster, maybe.

SPL should choose a good ASPL. ASPL should have clear responsibilities that includes overseeing the chaplain aides, librarians, scribes, etc. SPL works with ASPL to see that things are occuring. ASPL works with those positions to make sure things are happening.

Get the adults out of the picture as much as possible.

Tampa Turtle wrote: "I see TOO MUCH use of the meritbadge.org worksheets. Boys think they look stuff up, fill them out, and they get the MB."

Absolutely. Those worksheets are okay for notes or organization, but when it says discuss I insist on discuss. It's about the interaction of two people. I don't really care if the scout wrote anything down as most requirements are not "write an essay". I always feel bad for the scout who fills the worksheets in detail. Good for him as it's impressive, but it usually isn't required. Instead, he needs to jump thru a different hoop such as discuss or explain.

Not your place to decide if he's Eagle worthy or not. Let the Eagle advancement be his journey, not yours.

Be consistent. Support his advancement to the same amount you'd support any other scout.

Look for opportunities to be a positive influence on his character, his life and his skills.

That's about all you can do.

"with prejudice" just means they can't sue for the same incidence. They settled so the incident can't be re-opened in court. "without prejudice" means they could go to court again for the same incident.

Beavah wrote: "...meet the expectations in order to be recognized."

Old Grey Eagle wrote: "I thought it was defining the expectations is what prompted this thread in the first place, ... "

No, this is what originally started the previous thread and this thread.

"Is it once and done?" came from when the scout was tested, passed and then later, the scoutmaster judge the scout to not have the skill, usually at the SMC. Beavah says it's an scout honor thing and that to preserve the scout honor we don't let the scout advance until he can fulfill the requirement, independent of whether he did or did not fulfill it at a previous time. Others like me indicate that if tested previously and passed, he's done with that requirement. You can't hold him up at the SMC/BOR because he can't pass the test then. Instead focus on program to teach him and corrections to make the sign-offs better quality. That's the whole debate.

In my opinion, it's one test and done with a requirement. IMHO, completed requirements are truely completed and not "unofficial" until the BOR. Of course, it's up to the troop to make the testing process meaningful and to have a quality program to re-inforce new skills.

Beavah wrote: "There are all kinds of ways to use da BSA materials creatively and well."

I guess it all comes down to creative interpretation. Hopefully, scoutmasters are up front about when requirements are complete (i.e. when reviewed by the scoutmaster right before the SMC). I've just seen too many troops brag about giving scouts authority to sign off on T21 requirements and later talk about scoutmasters reviewing the skills. Or even scoutmasters and ASMs signing off on skills to only later bounce a scout back for skills reasons.

It's an interesting tap dance that people do.

Eagle92 wrote: "As for the bio before a BOR, I do hope you are joking right?"

No. It's real. Requiring a resume is their standard. They are a very well respected troop in our area with very experienced leaders. I don't think it's that bad of an idea ... except it's not part of the BSA program.

...

Eagle92 wrote: "Now this is where I think the misunderstanding between us comes in at. You state It also means passing the test (singular, no retest). That's explicit in the program. Once a requirement is complete it's complete."

I agree that's where the issue is. I'm okay with what you said after this quote. It's important to have a quality teaching and testing program.

The problem I have is the original thread had scoutmasters talk about having scouts showing the skills during their SMC and then bouncing the scouts back until they could demonstrate the skill ... because the badge is about what the scout can do and the scout should be able to show the skills. So even if the scout passed the earlier skills test and was signed off, scoutmasters felt the duty to make sure the scout learned his skills. And not to award the badge until they knew the skill.

If scoutmasters really want that quality check ability, then they should explicitly say "only the scoutmaster can perform skills tests and all skills tests will be performed at the start of the SMC. I don't like the idea, but I think they have that right.

But if you give the requirement sign-off authority to ASMs, senior scouts or others ... or test skills earlier ..., then the requirement is done when signed off. There's no double jeopardy on requirements.

Separating the learning from the testing? Good idea. Our troop does it by having the scouts teach each other skills and then going to an ASM to test / sign off. We might even let the troop guide, ASPL or SPL sign off, but we haven't done that recently. We just like a separation between who teaches and who tests. If they don't pass, the failure is explained / demonstrated and the scouts are sent to work on it with another scout again.

...

As for BOR's, there's not much a BOR should be able to surprise a scout with. Maybe a meaningful philosophical question. But advancement wise, if the paperwork is signed off, it's signed off. I have seen BORs end because there is no signature at some of the requirements. Everyone always wonders how that happened. Easy to fix though and then to reconstitute the BOR when ready.

...

The key is that if the requirement is signed off, it's over and done. It's a great idea make sure the troop did a good job teaching and testing and to keep practicing the skills in the troop program. But, the scout requirement for advancement is done.

Why does everyone assume you have no experience, no training or your a hovering cub scout parent if you assert a different position? I guess it's natural. My natural reaction to different scouting opinions is that I'm dealing with a cumodgeon using fuzzy bifocals to remember their youth and creatively interpreting BSA published documents to justify recreating their 1960s experience. But that's my bias. No offense intended.

...

Eagle92: You asked about my scouting history? Sort of funny you ask. There's a local troop that requires scouts to show up with an updated printed scouting resume before they will start a BOR. That's their "standard". It's not really a bad idea and there's plenty of good to justify it ... except it's not in the BSA program. But it's their troop and they can do what they want and still call it scouting because it's their standard.

...

My scouting resume... No scouting as a youth though I tried to join it several times. Mom was sick and Dad traveled. I had many other youth activities and was busy with school. Lettered five times in high school. BA and MS degrees.

Started scouting with my 1st son in Sept 2000. Cubs scouts: Registered as CC and COR from 2002 to current. Served as WDL in 2003-2005. Boy Scouts: Registered as MC Mar 2005-2009 and CC 2009-current though I was essentially a CC for years earlier as our CC lost his wife. I'm trained for all pack and troop positions and my first boy scout class was SM/ASM specific leadership in Apr/May 2005. As for training, MyScouting.org lists me as having 85 training courses. That's light as I never used my BSA ID or even signed in for several years until I learned the word ScoutNet. MyScouting.org does list WB, Trainers Edge, IOLS, OWLS, BALOO, WFA, archery instructor and others. First YP was back in 2002. Been attending roundtable consistently since 2002. District committee staff for three years. This was my first year teaching at Univ of Scouting.

I have four sons. My oldest son now has 150+ nights camping with the troop, 15+ nights with jamoboree, multiple high adventures and probably another 120+ nights over three years as camp staff. I only know this because I was reviewing his records as he prepared his Eagle Scout paperwork. My second son has similar history but he's 13 years old.

Our scoutmaster's on his 21st year in the troop and 14th year as scoutmaster. We effectively have two ASMs. One was the former SM and has been in scouting for sixty years. Now he runs the high adventure. The other supports the troop guide and likes to teach skills. I joke with our troop leaders that as they work with the scouts, I work with the adults. It's the same stuff just different size. Accountability. Behavior. Attitude. Focus. I also teach skills such as putting your hands in your pockets and playing cribbage, hearts, .... Most importantly, my job is to keep adults away from the scouts. I've been told I'm pretty good at that though a bit too obvious at times.

...

Yep, I've watched "Follow Me Boys" many times. Good movie though a bit mechanical. My sons enjoyed it. I always wondered how the unemployed drunk father could afford all that ice cream and what a waste that it melted. And I remember the Whitey scene. Wasn't he with a bunch of other scouts who had been in scouts longer than him? Many were probably also equal rank and they were clueless. That's life. In emergencies and on demand, people often can't perform. Under pressure performance is learned thru repetition. i.e. program.

...

You mentioned that scouts allowed to camp in the past. ... with permission of scoutmaster and parents. Sort of an important check and balance, eh? Perhaps the reason it's been removed is because scouts were never really automatically ready to camp on their own if they were first class. Perhaps they were only ready after being in the program for years and years.

...

Eagle92, I'm okay with the document quotes you list. So if the requirement is "demonstrate a taut line", then I'm fully fine with "must pass, to the satisfaction of the recognized local scout authorities." and troops maintaining healthy standards. But it means your troop having a good standard for "demonstrate a taut line". Not and setting up dining flies on two camp outs. Not and creating your own rope. Not and properly coiling and storing a rope. Not and blindfolded and behind your back. It means demonstrate a taut line. If there's hesitation or not a clean knot, then they need to develop their skill. The standard is about what's required and not about what's not mentioned.

It also means passing the test (singular, no retest). That's explicit in the program. Once a requirement is complete it's complete. Heck, how many times have I heard people say "once an Eagle, always an Eagle." Sounds like selective emphasis.

...

It's interesting that you quoted the 1965 2nd class hiking requirements. I really think that is what's going on. People are remembering the past different than it really existed. It's a different era and we need to present the scouting program as BSA documents it. Fifty years ago, scouts skinny dipped. Adults had a whiskey or beer for around their camp fire. And yes even physical intimidation at times. But that was 50 years ago.

...

The 1965 requirement you quoted was "2(a) Take three hikes, each on a different day, of not less than 5 miles each with your troop, your patrol, an adult, or another Scout ( all emphasis mine) who is at least Second class (b)Before each hike submit a hike plan for approval...." Nothing mentions mastery except getting a hike plan approved. It's just three hikes. And that requirement doesn't exist anymore.

It's interesting we're discussing "mastery" for the lower ranks and the high ranks emphasize merit badges. Merit badges are just "introductions" to the topics. Interesting.

...

I agree that we need to teach scouts skills they can use anytime. That's what the whole scouting program is for. All parts of it. Advancement is just one part.

Eagle92 wrote: - "BUT what is a SM suppose to do if a Scout cannot do the skills that he is suppose to be abel to do?"

Teach him! Don't penalize him! If the COH was the day before, would you take away the rank? Or if he passed a BOR the day before but had yet to get the badge and then you saw the missing skill, would you undo the paperwork? If he participated in a SMC (not a pass/fail event) and then saw the missing skill, would you bounce him back?

If he passed the skills test, the requirement is done. Focus on teaching the skill and correcting your troop. Don't penalize the scout.

A lot of this is a fight for control. We say Boy Scouts is boy led. Simiarly we say scouts advance at their own pace and control their own advancement. In that respect, we have explicit rank requirements that are written and published so the scout will know what he needs to do to advance and does not depend on a scoutmaster telling them when their ready per some undocumented whim only in the scoutmaster's head.

- If it's pass a swim test, it's pass a swim test. Don't like the results. Talk to the person who gave the test.

- If it's take a five mile hike with a map and compass, it's done when the hike is done. There's no "when you are comfortable with the boy hiking and navigating on his own without any adults or older scouts." That's not in the documented requirements and there's much more to safe hiking then a map, compass and a few basic rules.

We as adult leaders guide the whole troop program so that after the scout's tenure in scouting he has the lifelong capabilities and skills.

...

Beavah wrote: "A boy is able to do when he is able to do without us. Anything else is just a distinguished presentation of cow pies. "

Scouts are accountable to specific BSA documented requirements; not vague altruistic fluff. Your description does not resemble the requirements. Your mentioned requirements are also not real rank requirements.

...

Beavah wrote: "If you are willing to hand your kid the keys to the car the first time he successfully backs out the drive without taking out the mailbox, well, then it's once-and-done. . For da rest of us, I reckon we expect some reasonable degree of proficiency. "

Your analogy is sloppy. Advancement is more like "drivers ed" and "behind the wheel" with an instructor and THEN getting your permit. With the permit, there's an expectation to get many hours behind the wheel with an experienced driver. The experienced driver doesn't grab the wheel and doesn't have his own break pedal. He's just there to provide advice if needed and keep things safe. That experienced driver is the whole scouting program.

Of course the driving analogy breaks down because driving (at least in our state) has three tests: Passing behind the wheel. Passing the written test. Passing a final driving test. Scouting explicitly only has one test.

...

The original intensity of the "one and done" debate also started because people were asserting even if the scout was signed off on a requirement requirement, advancement could be delayed if the scout could not demonstrate a requirement later during a SMC or BOR ... because rank advancement is about what a scout can do and not what he's done.

I'm all for boy led.

I'm all for youth taught skills.

I'm all for good troop programs.

I'm all for high expectations.

But I'm vehemently against undoing completed requirements. ... "Oh but if you can't display it on demand it wasn't really learned in the first place." ... That's the biggest smelliest cow pie. Watch out for those who's mouth it falls out of.

For scouts signing off on T21, I mentioned it because I've seen 1st hand and also got from this thread SMs who will delay advancement for skills that were tested and signed off by an authorized person (ASM, senior scout, troop guide). It always raises the question of what did the original sign off mean and how will the scout know if he'll advance other than at the whim of a SM.

Eagle92 - I appreciate the history. I've only seen two revisions of the BSHB and two of the ACPP/GTA. Interesting how words change and interesting how BSA is inconsistent with wording across documents that exist at the same time. Which printed words should be treated as authoritative?

...

I agree that it's program program program. That's where our focus should be. That's all eight methods used together to develop our scouts.

...

The swim test is an excellent debate example. I'm really surprised by the responses though. The BSA rank swim requirement is very clear and includes an explicit proficiency expectation. In addition, swim tests are administered by authorized individuals who have received special aquadics training. If a scout passed the swimmers test, I'd have a really hard time explaining to him why I wouldn't sign off on that rank requirement.

SM...: "Sorry Timmy, your not ready to receive your first class rank yet. I just don't think your a good swimmer yet."

Scout: "But Mr. Scoutmaster my handbook says pass a BSA swim test and I did."

SM...: "Yes, but I'd like to see you become a stronger swimmer. You need to keep working on it."

Scout: "But it says pass a swim test."

SM...: "You see Timmy those BSA rank requirements are more like guidelines. Remember that Pirates of the Caribean movie. Remember parlay?"

Scout: "So how will I know when I can advance?"

SM...: "Just keep trying. I'll let you know when your ready."

...

Now you can debate proficiency. What's a strong stroke? Powerful or just adequate. Was he winded? How heavy of breathing is okay? Was it a pool or a lake? Was the water 75 degrees or 40 degrees? Smooth water, choppy or waves? Clear water or dog days of summer? Were carp and perch nibling at his leg hair? The problem is what criteria are you waiting for and how are your justifying it.

...

(Side discussion) ... If you do feel strongly enough to not pass the scout on the swimming rank requirement, you MUST change his swim tag. The scout parents entrusted his safety to you and you just decided he's not up to the swimming test proficiency. Now, you've drawn a line at advancement because of a safety claim. Sure he can practice swimming at camp, but he can do it in the non-swimmer / learners area. You don't want him in the swimmers section that has deep water, further out and the life guards have an expectation he is a proficient swimmer. You don't want him checking out a canoe or sail boat where if he gets in trouble it is harder to get to him in time.

And also, I'd hope you immediately take it up with the camp director and the council scout executive so it doesn't happen to other scouts. We're talking safety right? Someone drowning in a forward direction? What does it say to the scouts if you think aquadics staff arn't doing their job and you don't do anything about it.

This isn't Penn State right?

...

I'd hope this is something we can all agree on. If someone inappropriately passes a scout on a requirement, you need to talk to that person who passed the scout so it doesn't keep happening to other scouts. You also should look for a way to correct the mistake. That's our big debate. Do you unpass the scout or not recognize the test or expect more than is printed or treat the 1st test as a learning/practice/screening waiting for a final test at a later date or something else. My preference is to see the learning happens, preferably through the normal troop program; not to undo signed off requirements.

...

IMHO, the rubber hits the road with activities, not advancement. When you have responsibility, you need to make sure scouts are prepared, capable and safe. It doesn't matter what rank they are or what merit badges they've earned. Canoe trip? It doesn't matter if the scout earned the swimming merit badge two years ago. I'm going to make sure they took a swim test within the last year, preferably in the last three months. If I'm not sure they are a good swimmer, we'll do it again. That's my right as the person taking responsibility for their safety. Hiking trip? I don't care if your tenderfoot or Eagle scout. We'll review what to do if lost. We'll review first aid and make sure people have a first aid kit with them. If I'm not sure they are physically capable, we'll do practice hikes.

I don't care what troop advancement program you have, you can't trust rank as a certification or trust they are ready now because they were once judged proficient.

...

(another side discussion) I like scouts signing off on T21 with one exception. If you give scouts the authority and they sign off, it's signed off. Done and gone. But, that's yet another twist on this discussion.

If I remember right, the bandage in the video was okay, but not 100% up to par. Now if the scout had done a bandage that was up to expectations, should he have been signed off? Yes.

I'm okay with tough expectations. IMHO, that's a matter of good coaching and a good program. Also, I've rarely a seen a scout protest if when asked to try again or to fix what they've done.

...

Scouters keep quoting the GTA where it says a badge recognizes what a scout can do, not what they've done. But then reject the idea that if they can "do" the BSA requirement that that's enough. Instead they want more experience or calendar time or teaching other scouts or something else not written in the rank requirement. That's very much a reward for what they've done and based on expectations not written in the BSA requirements.

...

Eagle92 wrote: "You do not sign it off after they just learn it. You let them use the skill some and practice. you give them time for them to get comfortable with the skill before signing off." ... and he wrote ... "Then once it is signed off, THEN they need to keep using it and teach others."

Fine as long it doesn't become an extended part of the requirement. Example: "Sorry, you only learned the skill yesterday. We require a month and a camp out between learning and signing off on the requirement."

The worst is bouncing a scout back for a requirement that's already been signed off.

...

desertrat77: I agree with the part where you wrote. "Somewhere along the line, I think the indoor folks got tired of being upstaged by the outdoors folks. So the reduced focus on outdoors and adventure was reflected in scout advancement requirements, and woodbadge as well. No more embarrassment for the folks not so good at sharpening an axe, who hated sleeping in the outdoors, or smelling like campfire smoke...."

I agree. It's like advancement has become a religious certification to some unwritten metaphysical concept of the ideal scouters overtaking all the other methods of scouting. Some scouters have imbued a legendary status on the ranks when reality is that a rank just indicates a scout met the requirements published in the book when tested.

...

Since we can't agree what the requirements are even when they are explicitly written, why don't we just ditch the whole advancement program and just say tenderfoot is 5 nights camping in a tent. Second class is ten nights camping. First class is twenty five. Star is fifty. Life is seventy five. Eagle is a hundred nights camping in a tent.

That would raise the standard. My 17 year old son has over 150 nights with his troop, 15+ with his jambo troop and at least another 100+ as camp staff over the last three years. My 13 year old son has around fifty nights with his troop.

But wait, that's recognizing scouts for what they've done instead of what they can do. And BSA advancement requirements haven't included time spans or past performance except when called out. Be head cook for one meal. Five activities with your troop. 4 months as a star scout.

You know I finally realized what I'm stating is exactly what GTA is saying.

GTA says: It is important thus, to remember that in the end, a badge recognizes what a young man is able to do and how he has grown. It is not so much a reward for what he has done.

Every one of the rank requirements is an action and a reflection of capability that has been learned. You can debate if it sticks or not. That's a reflection of the troop program reinforcing the skills. But the point is the scout demonstrated, explained, participated, repeated or another action exactly as BSA wrote. Those are exactly a reflection of what the scout can do and how he's grown.

The key is GTA also says no retesting and no adding requirements. You can dance all you want about the honor of learning, but there is an honesty and duty in presenting the BSA program as BSA wrote it. Testing a scout at a SMC after an authorized person observed the requirement fulfilled is wrong. Telling the scout to come back and do it again three months later is wrong as it's adding to the requirements.

I agree youth have a high sense of right and wrong; fair and unfair; achievements and empty recognition. But then again, that's a matter of effective teaching. The difference is asking the scout to drink a cool aid that's not described in his scout handbook or the BSA advancement requirements.

...

The title of this thread is "Is it Once and Done". GTA says explicitly no retesting and no adding requirements. So yes, it is once and done ... at least for advancement. But you can use patrol method, outdoor program, adult association, ... to reinforce the rank skills. Hopefully your troop program does that continually so as to produce a strong skilled scout.

...

I think it all comes down to a fundamental attitude. I've sat in district committee meetings for years now where the district chair said how proud he was that our district advancement committee did such a great job defending the Eagle brand. Another responded another time that scouting is producing just too many Eagle scouts today and that it should be more special. Another responded recently to the new GTA saying it was yet another watering down of the Eagle rank and then complained that if they reject an Eagle candidate it will just be overturned by council or national.

Thank God for our DEs and the other committee members. I always wonder if they know that not everyone has the same interpretation. That sometimes people just sit and smile and then move on.

It comes down to is your primary purpose to support the scout or support the legend of scouting. If your supporting the scout (what we signed up for), why aren't debates like this decided in the favor of the scout. "ahhhh... but if we send him back he'll feel the inner integrity and honor of having truely earned it." What total hogwash, eh.

Beavah, I appreciate your creative interpretion of what I'm saying. It educational to have someone tell me what I mean.

Yes Eagle Scout is a statement of character, leadership and skill. But it's achieved thru all eight methods of scouting. Not one. Ideals. Patrol method. Outdoors. Advancement. Assocation with adults. Personal growth. Leadership development. Uniform. They stand together to achieve that marketing puffery.

From the previous chain, I have several issues with what was being discussed.

ISSUE #1 The scout is accountable to the BSA published requirements. No more. No less. If the requirement says "Explain" and the scout can clearly explain what to do when lost, he should be signed off and that requirement is completed. If you think the explanation is insufficient, communicate that, ask him to go work with an experienced scout and come back when he's ready.

But it is not acceptable to make him wait weeks to be tested. It's not acceptable to require him to be on N number of hiking trips to build enough proficiency. The requirement is as BSA published it --> Explain.

It is made proficient and made a personal learned skill through the full use of all the scouting methods. Don't use advancement to do that when the requirements don't require it.

IMHO, it's mean because it's telling a scout he's unprepared / failed / insufficient when he's completed the BSA published expectations.

ISSUE #2 If it's signed off, it's signed off. We don't undo merit badges. We don't undo ranks. Why undo completed requirements? If an authorized person signs off on the rank requirement it's complete. If the scout didn't complete the requirement, correct the authorized person and find a way through the troop program to get the scout the learning he deserved.

To get it to stick, the troop program should have opportunities to regularly reinforce those skills for the whole duration of the scout being in scouts. It's the same reason we say the oath and law before each meeting and not just as part of the tenderfoot rank requirements.

ISSUE #3 It is not the job of the SM at the SMC to pass/fail scouts or send them away if he doesn't think they have mastered some set of skills. Each individual requirement is signed off by someone authorized. Once signed off, it's signed off. The example in the thread was the SMC that failed the scout for not knowing the parts of the scout badge when it had already been signed off by an authorized person.

(This message has been edited by fred8033)

In situations like these, I'm open and up front with my sons. Reality impacts ideals. Tell them what BSA says and then explain to them the situation. If you can't or don't want to change troops, then help them make the decision to just get through it. Rarely can a member change the habits of the troop. Protesting or fighting it too much will just alienate everyone.

And then help your son remember the experience and make the decision that when he someday becomes an adult scout leaders he'll do it by the book and not play these games.

People quote GTA sections that basically say "(b) In Boy Scouting, recognition is gained through leadership in the troop, attending and participating in its activities, living the ideals of Scouting, and proficiency in activities related to outdoor life, useful skills, (emphasis mine)and career exploration." p 75 G2A

But that is not open authority to do what you want under the rule "unit expectations". BSA spells out specific requirements. "participate in activities" is 1 for T, 5 for 2nd class and 10 for first class. "leadership" is only supervising assistant cooks for first class.

Similarly for skills ... explain hiking skills and what to do when lost does not require mastery that lasts a life time. It's explain. Yes, one time. Life long memory and proficiency comes by going on hiking trips. Demonstrate a taut line is just demonstrate a taut line. Your going to learn it for a lifetime by helping setup the rain flies for the coming years.

...

trainerlady's post is a perfect example that I've seen before that I apparently failed to state clearly enough and that I think CalicoPenn was trying to give an example of. I've seen it locally with units that have senior scouts sign off on requirements but then don't trust that the skill was learned and later re-test the scout.

It's selective reading and just wrong to pay attention to GTA / ACPP general statements on proficiency, but then ignoring the specifics.

GTA 2.0.0.1 It Is a MethodNot an End in Itself - "Advancement is simply a means to an end, not an end in itself. It is one of several methods designed to help unit leadership carry out the aims and mission of the Boy Scouts of America."

GTA 5.0.1.3 - "No council, committee, district, unit, or individual has the authority

to add to or subtract from advancement requirements."

For trainerlady's post, this is the appropriate GTA reference.

GTA 4.2.3.5 Unit Leader (Scoutmaster) Conference - "Note that a Scout must participate or take part in one; it is not a test. Requirements do not say he must pass a conference."

If it's demonstrate, it's demonstrate. There's nothing saying demonstrate and then come back two weeks later to prove you still remember it (re-testing). That's adding requirements.

If you don't think the scout demonstrated the skill well enough, don't sign off in the 1st place. Show it to them and then tell them to go practice it with a patrol mate. Tell them that when they are ready, you will be there for them to demonstrate it. You don't have to lower your standards to do it the right way.

If you don't think the MB counselor taught the MB, you correct the counselor, not the scout. Then, you also work it into the program to get the scout the knowledge / skill he deserved through the MB. Same with rank requirements. If someone authorized signed off, correct that person and look to find a way to get the scout the skill. Don't whiplash the scout and tell him he did something wrong.

...

trailerlady - Though it might not be wise for the future of your son's experience in his troop to push it, per BSA GTA your son has completed the next requirement (participating in a SMC) and it is now his right to ask for a BOR and it is the required responsibility of the unit leaders get make it happen (GTA section 8.0.0.2). Your troop has blown it twice. First, if they don't believe your son completed the rank requirement as BSA wrote (knots, cooking or what ever), they should not have signed off. If the SM gives authority to an ASM or a senior scout to sign off, then it's signed off and done. Second, "failing" your son at a SMC is just wrong. You don't fail SMCs. If there is a concern that your son doesn't have the skill, there's plenty of opportunities in scouting to teach those skills. The wrong way though is to blind-side a scout telling them a requirement isn't done that's already been signed off. How can he plan his advancement? Who can he trust now? I'm just disgusted when I hear people defending what happened to your son. It's just wrong!

It's interesting when reading both the GTA requirements and the SM handbook discussion, everything in a SMC is a personal discussion. SMC is not at all a skills test.

...

Skills are only permanently ingrained through repetition over time. But T21 has few duration requirements and even those don't approach the number needed for mastery or long-term proficiency. The first class food requirement is a one time requirement. You don't get mastery / proficiency by doing it once. You get it by coordinating food for every three months for a few years. The example I always remember is the oath and law. I've seen scouts that know it very well for testing the tenderfoot requirement and then will forget it two days later. But if the troop says it at the start of each meeting for a few years, the scouts will remember it for a lifetime. Doing it once (at the level of proficiency required by the authorized person that signs off) fulfills the requirements for advancement. Doing it weekly makes the learning permanent.

"I get where that this "don't be mean", "he did his best" stuff is a product of da Cub Scout program, and some Cub Scouters and parents have a hard time with the transition to Boy Scouting, ..."

There you go again. "product of da cub scout program" is a way to dismiss valid points by blowing hot air.

"Yah, yah. Kids are entitled to awards and recognition by others." It's not their entitlement. It's an earned result of completing requirements as published by BSA. If you don't like the requirements, take it out on BSA. Don't take it out on the scout or other scouters. That's the mean part.

"A boy who gets signed off on da taut line hitch should be able to set up the patrol's dining fly or rig a clothes line or whatnot when asked."

Taut line is a fine example. If they can demonstrate it and explain the use, sign off on the requirement. It would be great if there's a rain fly to put up to use as demonstration of capability. But if not, we make do and support the scout. they should not be given the rank until they've had plenty of time to participate in the program, practice and master those skills. is just wrong. You might personally want that, but that's not the BSA rank requirement.

"A boy who gets signed off as being able to plan, purchase, store, and cook a weekend's meals for his patrol should be able to do that, in whatever conditions are common for the region. So a PL should be able to call up a First Class scout and delegate the weekend's food to him, and the lad should be able to handle it, with nutritious and tasty results." There you go again. You've drank the marketing hype cool-aid. The requirements are "help plan" not to plan by himself. Nothing says tasty. Nothing says "whatever conditions". Though the program goal is what your describing, the advancement requirements are just one tool in the basket to teach those skills.

"A Boy Scout badge recognizes what a scout is able to do." No. You're thinking of a Norman Rockwell painting and marketing brochures. The rank recognizes completion of requirements as published by BSA. No more. No less.

What's funny is that my main financial concern in the troop is not fraud. My main concern is getting people reimbursed and reimbursed quickly. The last thing I want is for the unit leader's spouse developing a grudge against scouting because he (or she) swallows several hundred of dollars of cost every year or floats big dollar amounts for a period of time.

Though fraud does happen all the time and MUST be our main concern, the opposite problem is more common in scouts.

"Yah, I think we have to get over da notion that folks who want kids to learn are mean-spirited."

Generic logic like that has been used for thousands of years to justify treating kids badly. The right logic to use is "what is the requirement" and "did the scout fulfill the requirement".

It's mean spirited to demean a scout's (or scouter's) accomplishment just because it's not up to your personal standards. He's graded against the BSA standards, not yours. And it's not candy to give a scout his due. If you don't like the standards, talk to BSA. Don't knock the scout or his volunteer leaders.

"True, but the quoted "proficiency in outdoor skills" appears in the Rules and Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America which we all agreed to follow. I think "proficient" is da right term, eh? Not quite mastery, but definitely solid skills. "

That's not in the current GTA, but it is in the previous ACPP under rules and regulations. And even there it's not the "shall" (i.e. the requirement) and is more a general statement than something that can be directly applied.

But it does say right before it. "The rank requirements in these phases of the Scouting program, as set forth in the official publications, shall furnish the basis of the activities of the unit." So if the rank requirement says "demonstrate" or "discuss", it means "demonstrate" or "discuss" and not mastery or proficiency. The only requirement close to a proficiency requirement is in the swimmers test (75 yards in a strong manor, etc.) and even that I would not call "mastery" or "proficiency". I'd call that not drowning.

The key is the previous sentence in the ACPP rules and regulations. "A fundamental principle of advancement shall be that the boys progress is a natural outcome of his activities in his unit." And the "BSA" rank requirements reflect that. Help with. Participate in. Complete a.... Demonstrate. Discuss. Identify. Advancement just means that at some point in time you knew how to tie a bowline.

Mastery and life-long skills are established through program activities both before and after achieving rank and demonstrating the skills.

"Some lazy adult just pencil-whipped a requirement." ... "Pejorative." ... Yeah, I was thinking that too. The quoted "mastered" only appears in a magazine blowing air into scout achievements. I always fear when marketing hype is taken too seriously by some mean spirited adult that remembers his white-washed youth with fuzzy bifocals. Sorry, I was just too lazy to find a nicer way to say it.

The word mastered never appears in the GTA. It only appears in the ACPP when talking about parents signing off on Bobcat requirements. What does appear in the GTA is the explicit discussion of no re-testing. Also, a discussion of "Once It Is Earned, Its Earned". That's about MB, but it's also written in other words about other requirements.

If you want scouts to "master" skills, take them camping every month. Take them to district camporees that have competitive skills testing. Have patrol competitions. That's how they learn mastery.

Advancement is a tool, not a certification.

SR540Beaver wrote their council dropped the price to $1500 and touring. That sounds great and approaching a reasonable cost. My son has seen DC and will probably see that area again in the near term future. With the national Jambo cost of $850, I'd hope they could knock the council cost down again a bit. Heck, ship the scouts by bus to the event. Stop and do some "free" tours such as Notre Dame or an air force base or such.

IMHO, the key is visibility, openness and simplicity. If you have that, then writing checks and debit cards are not that big of an issue. If you don't have it, then there's big issues no matter how you do it.

Petty cash - I just don't like the idea. What's petty? $10? $25? $50? $200? $500? Also, how many people have petty cash? Den leaders? Cubmaster? Event coordinators? If it's $50 or $100 each, your getting into serious money. Finally, I can guarantee you won't get all your receipts and it will be a pain to balance the books. Most leaders I know don't mind floating small amounts for a week or two. The key is to get them reimbursed quickly and to make it easy for them.

Debit card - Our troop has a scout account with the local scout office. It often has $300 or $500 in it to reserve camps, purchase advancements or other. I can guarantee you that we don't get clean receipts to balance the books on it. The local scout office also doesn't guarantee who can access it or provide reporting of transactions against it.

I'd much rather the scoutmaster have a debit card for the troop. Then, I can see where the money was spent. If necessary, I can ask them to re-print the receipt for transaction #####. We don't have debit cards now, but it's been discussed.

online - For online, we tied our troop bank account to a PayPal account. Easy to do online purchases then.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

To be honest, everything you've said sounds like a positive to me. If it wasn't for the $2250 price tag, I'd be supportive of sending my son(s).

Trust? Not that simple to answer.

**********************************************

PHYSICALLY PROTECTING YOUTH

**********************************************

yes - national

yes - council

yes - district

yes - troop, pack

yes - individual scouters

**********************************************

MENTALLY AND EMOTIONALLY PROTECTING YOUTH

**********************************************

yes - national

yes - council

yes - district

yes - troop, pack

mixed - individual scouters. Some scouters who are stars in their troop I'd want thrown out of mine. Enough said.

**********************************************

MONEY

**********************************************

no - national - FOS. Popcorn. Jamboree. Continuous fundraising

no - national - scout store prices. uniform quality.

yes - national - philmont, seabase, ntier

y&n - council.

yes - district

yes - troop, pack

yes - individual scouters

**********************************************

PROGRAM AND ADVANCEMENT

**********************************************

yes - national

yes - council

no - district - Two years ago more concerned with protecting the quality of the eagle award then supporting every scout.

yes - district - For the last year or so

yes - our troop and pack

no - other troops Programs are too inconsistent accross units and I've seen just too many weird rules and practicies.

mixed - individual scouters. Some seem more concerned about "scouting" than the "scout".

**********************************************

District execs

**********************************************

Yes - I trust them. Depend on them??? ... I've yet to see a bad one. Some are more effective. All are supportive and helpful. All are underpaid. All are under big pressure. All are pulled in multiple directions at once. All face conflicting priorities. All deal with emotional situations and alot of hard headed people who think they know the program than they do. They are in a thankless job. God bless 'em.

(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Here's a completely different idea. (and I'm betting this has been suggested before...)

Let scouters do the same thing scouts do. Move the recognition to a sash and to be used during COH or special ceremonies. I'd put my knots on it instead of just choosing the one or two of the most memorable ones. I'd put the Eagle pins I've been given on it. I'd put memorable temporary patches on the back. Heck, let adults put all their old positions on it too.

Then you can have as many knots and special recognitions as you want. You could even add some. Maybe a small knot for each Univ of Scouting attended. A knot for each year you've attended four round tables.

Just an idea to keep the uniform be functional and sharp and not tacky but let scouters have a chance to show off all their achievements. ... and not get stuck using devices (no pun intended)